Did he dismiss them as lies? Call the moderator to help resolve that. If he in fact did that, which I don’t recall seeing.
“Fair” is irrelevant when battling the minions of Satan.
I just reread the first reactions to the post, GEEPERS, but I can’t see Czarcasm calling your personal experiences lies.
There’s Lobohan using the word “nonsense”, though.
Maybe you’re confused?
But while we’re there, geepers, could you tell us some more about your encounters with demons?
It may help to go into more detail about what we would consider valid evidence. Some of the Christians here keep saying that their personal experiences are a kind of evidence, just maybe not convincing to the rest of us. Reminds me of when Lionel Hutz said something like “Well, your honor, we have hearsay and conjecture - those are kinds of evidence.”
The fact that the universe exists is not evidence that the Loch Ness Monster exists. I hope we all can see this. Similarly, the fact that the universe exists is not evidence for a god. Not even shitty evidence - it’s just not evidence at all.
The fact that my tummy gurgles when I’m hungry is not evidence that the Loch Ness Monster exists. Again, this should be clear to everyone, even if I belong to a religion that says that the Loch Ness Monster communicates with me by gurgling my tummy, it’s not evidence that the LNM is real when that happens. Not even shitty evidence. Similarly, when people have personal experiences that they think a god is communicating with them, it’s not evidence that this god actually exists.
The fact that my uncle’s brother-in-law kicked his drug habit when he started worshiping the Loch Ness Monster is not evidence that the LNM exists. People everywhere change their lives for all kinds of reasons, especially when they think they have a grander purpose to live for. However, this is not evidence that the thing they worship actually exists in the real world.
The fact that New York City is a real place, and the Spiderman stories are set in NYC, is not evidence that the Spiderman stories are actually true. Not even a kind of evidence, not even shitty evidence. Similarly, actual place names mentioned in your holy book are in no way supportive of the stories in that book.
I’ve noticed that when people claim to have evidence for their religion, what they claim usually falls into one of these categories. When we skeptics brush them off, they often get indignant, saying that their statements may not be convincing to us (for whatever reason), but that they are evidence. I hope this shows you why we skeptics brush them off. We don’t believe that your personal experience of a relationship with god is evidence for his existence any more than you would believe that someone’s tummy gurgling is evidence that supports his belief in the Loch Ness Monster. It just doesn’t count as evidence at all.
And, out of nowhere, but no believers have ever been able to even vaguely answer this one. Why are amputees never healed? If you really do believe that God heals people from various diseases, don’t you also wonder this?
That’s a beautiful post. I’ve never seen it put just so.
My apologies. I was speaking more towards the general response of the board, and didn’t make myself clear. I didn’t mean to accuse Czarcasm specifically.
People make mistakes. People convince themselves of things that are not true. Your personal experiences are just like the experiences of people of other religions have. Followers of Hinduism and Islam and Judaism feel a personal connection and spiritual fulfillment from their religions too.
Isn’t it likely then, that people get these feelings because of a common emotional response, rather than the Christian God giving you a genuine feeling and everyone else getting a fake one?
Enough, hoopified. You’re threadshitting. You can either participate in the actual discussion or you may ignore this thread, but you can’t post here just to say the discussion is stupid.
But you did. Specifically.
Be that as it may, who did call your personal experiences “lies”?
The Christian experience is more than just feeling emotions. God communicates directly to us often through the Holy Spirit. I gave one example of this when I was told to go forward to that altar, and a complete stranger prayed for my specific problems. Are you going to write that off as random concidence too?
This thread hasn’t been fair. For the majority, I’ve been the sole Christian in this thread, and I don’t have the time or energy to respond to every criticism. I would love a discussion in a more even forum with roughly the same number of Christians and atheists.
Try looking at it from our point of view.
Why should someone who doesn’t believe in gods take your personal experience story as ‘proof enough’ for the existence of Yaweh?
Because if we accepted that kind of evidence as ‘proof enough’ then we would also have to accept the 1001 other religion’s experiences as ‘proof enough’. Which would create some contradictions…
It would also inescapably lead to the conclusion that Yaweh is not the only god.
It’s been pointed out to you repeatedly that there are many Christians who are Dopers. They just don’t accept your claims as valid evidence. Not accepting your claims does not make them non-Christians.
Do you seriously believe that you are the only Christian posting in this thread?
It is easy to give credit to the unexplained with simple answers, especially saying God’s hand at play. Having said that, there are things in both science and in our own experiences that cannot be explained. We know we use only about 10% of our brain’s capacity but that there have been instances where psychics have found bodies and solved murders. Is that evidence of God? I won’t go that far. I would suggest there’s way more going on than our current science is able to explain. But this thread is asking for evidence and since no one can provide any actual scientific evidence perhaps we’ve reached a point where the debate has reached a point of no contention. I know in my life I’ve experienced things that I cannot explain. Some call it fate, others call it destiny, and then others will simply call it coincidence. I’ve presented theories (Dr. Goswami’s non-local consciousness) that would explain some of these but again, like my collegues have pointed out the credibility of some of the people conducting the experiments in non-local consciousness can be highly questioned. So we are left to ponder. The split between science and spirituality has been around for many hundred years because both have hit dead ends. The difference is that science is open to new data where it would seem that religion is a closed debate. Anyone who claims something with absolutes is destined to be proven wrong at some point.
Is this some sort of “Spot The Mistakes” game?
I don’t mean to speak for the atheists, but I would venture to say that if someone could actually provide irrefutable evidence of God, that they would be open minded enought to accept it. I don’t know that I can say the same for the other side of this debate. Though, I would suggest it would be far more difficult to prove that God doesn’t exist than to prove It/He/She does. Given our ignorance, thus far, of the mysteries of the universe. Perhaps one day we’ll figure it all out. But that day is a long time coming.
This is completely false. It’s an urban legend that has been absolutely debunked.
Has there ever actually been a confirmed case? It’s mostly media hype and nonsense. Police departments rarely bother with psychics and under scrutiny their records are not impressive.
I’m not sure what you were expecting, but when you throw out claims and you continue to participate in the thread, you shouldn’t be surprised when they are challenged. Yes, it would be nice to have other people jump in and defend a claim you made a time or two, but from what I gather you seem to be expecting other people to fight every battle for you.
Maybe that’s not a fair appraisal of your position. I concede that it’s arduous to fight off every person criticizing a view point.
The problem is that most of the time you are fighting criticisms off you’ve been fighting them off with assertions that the people doing the criticizing are being disingenuous to some degree. The people criticizing are only doing so because they are atheists or because their atheistic worldview demands that they cannot look at the evidence/arguments fairly.
As though someone looking at the evidence cannot reasonably come up with a view different from your own. If they do, it must be because of their atheistic bias.
That sort of attitude does not fly and you should not expect it to.